Difference Principle According to Rawl - Essay Sample

Introduction

"Theory of justice" refers to a political book that focuses on distribution justice. The book discusses "the original position" as well as "the two principles of justice (Rawls, 2009).This paper will focus on the difference principle as developed by Rawls in his writing. The difference principle states that "Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are highly beneficial to the least-advantaged members of society (Rawls, 2009).''

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to his argument, Rawls alludes that the things that the common man wants are usually justified so long as they help improve the lives of those that are most disadvantaged in the society (Bell, 2014). Rawls goes a step further to suggest that inequalities in the society can only be acceptable if they are aimed at helping the poor. This means that even though he believed in being just, he was also from the school of thought that believed taking from the poor and handing to the rich is fair.

In his principle, Rawls also claims that the background that one comes from should not be used as a deterrent to what one can achieve (Rawls, 2009). In fact, he claims that a person's life challenges and opportunities should not be determined by factors beyond their control such as their family. Also, Rawls also claim that the innate talents that one has are not his sole property since the society is also expecting to benefit from them. By sharing, he believes that an alternative to "justice of distribution" is eliminated (Bell, 2014). Just like most moral individuals, Rawls also holds the thought that we should make sure that some of the present material is left to be enjoyed by future generations.

Rawls difference principle is a perfect example of an ideal that follows the Robin Hood principle. For instance, he alludes that it is just to take material things from the rich so long as the material is intended to be distributed to the poor (Bell, 2014). Just as the Robin Hood principle is focused in elevating and improving the lives of those who are disadvantaged, Rawls also holds the notion that a wrong committed with the aim of uplifting the weak is justifiable (Rawls, 2009). Note that, this is somehow contradictory since he also believes that no one should be denied an opportunity based in their lineage. Rawls argument that innate talents should be shared with the general public is associated with the fact that since they are inborn and not everyone is equally blessed to have similar traits it is necessary for those with such talents to share them. Furthermore, he also claims that they have a moral responsibility to share their talents with the general public.

According to Rawls, the unique gifts and talents that the rich have should be used not only for their success but also to help the poor in the process (Rawls, 2009). For instance, if a rich man has a farm; it is responsible for him to consider employing the poor so that they benefit from the produce that is derived from the farm. This sharing of fruits from their abilities is referred to as "sharing of a common asset." In governments that have adopted this policy, it is recommended that even though not everybody would get an equal share of the pie, at least, each individual should have a bite (Kukathas et al, 2010). Essentially, this ensures that there is not only income distribution but also a deep sense of unity that is usually missing between the rich and the poor.

Rawls understanding of the term desert states that one cannot boost of the things that he was privileged to have as a result of where he was born. In his principle, he claims that such gains are like a lottery and should not be solely used to assess the value of a person. Notice that, he seems to think that such people do not deserve the privileges that they enjoy (Rawls, 2009). In fact, he alludes that such a person is not morally entitled to the property that he owns. According to him one should only be proud of what they legitimately own.

These sentiments did not go well with many libertarians with Robert Nozick claiming that the treatment of the naturally endowed talents in human beings as collective assets contradicts deontological liberalism. Nozick went further to claim that the fact that Rawls claims we cannot take credit for the virtues of character we have is an act that can block the perception created on choices and action that such privileged individuals decide to take on their own (Bell, 2014). Nozick claims that it goes against Rawls own believe of people being viewed as who they are and not for what they have. Despite the claims by the likes of Nozick, Jean Hampton claims that the assumption that natural endowments are collective acts is what creates the difference in the interpretations provided by Novick and Rawls.

Conclusion

Throughout the paper, we note that Rawls tries to create a picture between what is right and what is fair. While trying to defend the rights of the poor he is very keen not to seem inconsiderate of the rich. The fact that he thinks wealth should be redistributed and not benefit the rich alone is a Robin Hood like character that is unique in his principle. The fact that there are arguments concerning his interpretation of some of the topics is consistent with what happens in the modern society.

References

Rawls, J. (2009). A Theory of Justice. In Applied Ethics, 21-29.

Kukathas, C., & Pettit, P. (2010). Rawls indifference principle. "A Theory of Justice' and its Critics, 354-389.

Bell, D. (2014). Environmental justice and Rawls' difference principle. Environmental Ethics, 26(3), 287-306.